| Course | BUSI 616 Total Quality Management (BUSI616) |
|---|---|
| Module/Week | 8 |
| Assignment | TQM Presentation |
| Paper type | Conference-style slide presentation with talking notes |
| Length | about 922 words, 3 double-spaced pages plus title page and references. Course guide: a 5 to 7 minute presentation of no more than 10 slides with talking notes, following the guide's outline: 1 minute of introduction, problem statement, search history and reason for study; 3 or more minutes on the quality philosophy, the quality tool used to create a process flow diagram and the statistical process control used for tracking; and 1 or more minutes of conclusion with biblical integration |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| Points | 195 |
| School | Liberty University Online |
| Program | MBA |
| Where it sits | Module/Week 8 in Liberty's published BUSI 616 course guide; current sections can differ |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for BUSI 616 Week 8
First-Time Fit: A Six-Minute Total Quality Management Presentation on Reducing Crown Remakes at a Dental Laboratory
[Student Name]
School of Business, Liberty University
BUSI 616: Total Quality Management
TQM Presentation
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The dental laboratory, its process and its control chart figures are composites standing in for a student's own TQM project; the textbook, Scripture and studies cited are real, and the requirements follow Liberty's public course guide for BUSI 616.
First-Time Fit: A Six-Minute Total Quality Management Presentation on Reducing Crown Remakes at a Dental Laboratory
Slide 1: First-Time Fit
- Shenandoah Dental Arts: 60 technicians, about 400 dental practices
- 9.4 percent of crowns came back for a remake last year
- Every remake means a second appointment for a patient
Speaker notes: Good afternoon. Shenandoah Dental Arts is a dental laboratory in Harrisonburg, Virginia, and last year almost one crown in ten came back to us to be made again. Each of those remakes cost us materials and labor, but it also cost a dentist chair time and a patient a second appointment. My project asked how total quality management could help us get crowns right the first time.
Slide 2: How I Searched and Why
- Jerry Falwell Library: ABI/INFORM, Business Source Complete, PubMed
- Terms: remake AND fixed prosthodontics; total quality management AND competitive advantage; statistical process control
- Peer-reviewed sources; laboratory remake data from the past twelve weeks
Speaker notes: I searched the business and health databases through Liberty's library, combining terms on dental remakes, total quality management and statistical process control, and kept to peer-reviewed studies. The reason for the study was simple: a large audit of more than 40,000 restorations found that fit problems drove most laboratory remakes (Alkadi et al., 2026), which told me our problem was common and, more importantly, addressable.
Slide 3: The Philosophy: Deming's System View
- Defects are mostly built into the process managers design
- Reduce variation; stop relying on final inspection
- Crosby's lesson added: write clear requirements
Speaker notes: I built the project on W. Edwards Deming's philosophy. Goetsch and Davis (2016) summarize his view that management owns the system and that inspection at the end cannot create quality. Our response to remakes had been a final inspection bench and quiet blame. Deming pointed us upstream instead. I borrowed one idea from Philip Crosby as well, clear requirements, because many prescriptions reached us without the details a technician needs. Powell (1995) found that what gives quality programs their edge is leadership commitment and empowerment rather than tools, so the philosophy came before the charts.
Slide 4: From Check Sheet to Pareto
- Twelve weeks, 262 remakes, six reason codes
- Open margins 32 percent; proximal contacts 23 percent
- Two causes, 55 percent of remakes
Speaker notes: We had no data on why crowns failed, so the intake desk used a check sheet for twelve weeks. The Pareto chart that followed was clear: open margins and proximal contacts made up more than half of all remakes. Those two problems told us where to look in the process.
Slide 5: The Process Flow Diagram
- Case received, then prescription check (new: hold if incomplete)
- Scan review, then margin clear? (new: second review or rescan)
- Design, then milling, then porcelain, then final check, then ship
Speaker notes: Using the Pareto results, we drew the process as a flow diagram, from the moment a case arrives to the moment it ships. Drawing it showed us something we had never seen on paper: no step asked whether the margin was visible before a designer committed to it. We added two decision points, shown here as new. Incomplete prescriptions are held at intake, and unclear margins get a second designer's review or a rescan request.
Slide 6: Testing the Change
- Four-week pilot with three of twelve designers
- Open-margin remakes: 0.9 percent in the pilot, 3.1 percent elsewhere
- Small numbers, so the result was extended, not declared final
Speaker notes: We tested the new steps the way the PDCA cycle recommends, with a small pilot. Remakes surface weeks after a crown ships, so we waited six weeks to read the results. The pilot group's open-margin rate was well below everyone else's, though with only two remakes we treated it as promising rather than proven.
Slide 7: Tracking With a p-Chart
- Weekly proportion of crowns remade, about 225 crowns a week
- Baseline center line 9.4 percent; limits 3.6 and 15.2 percent
- Agreed signal of a real shift: an eight-week run under the average
Speaker notes: To track the whole laboratory, we use a p-chart, the control chart for the proportion of defective units. With a baseline average of 9.4 percent and about 225 crowns a week, the standard error is about 1.95 percentage points, so the limits sit at 3.6 and 15.2 percent. Benneyan et al. (2003) explain why this matters: weekly rates bounce around naturally, and the chart separates that noise from a real shift. We agreed in advance that a run of eight straight weeks under the average would count as a signal.
Slide 8: The Solution and Projected Outcome
- Margin review, rescan rule and reason codes now standard
- Projected remake rate: about 6.5 percent after two PDCA cycles
- Roughly 340 fewer remakes a year
Speaker notes: All twelve designers now follow the new steps. If the open-margin result holds and our second cycle on proximal contacts does half as well, we project the remake rate falling from 9.4 to about 6.5 percent, which is roughly 340 fewer remakes a year. For the business, that means lower material and labor cost, faster turnaround for dentists and a stronger reason for practices to stay with us.
Slide 9: Conclusion: Faithful Work
- Quality begins upstream, in the system
- Every crown serves a dentist and a patient
- Work done as service, not only for inspection
Speaker notes: Paul told workers to serve with sincerity, not only when watched to win approval, but as people doing God's will from the heart (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, Ephesians 6:6). A final inspection bench catches work done for the eye; a process built for first-time fit expresses work done from the heart. That is what this project tried to build: a laboratory where quality is designed into every step, for the sake of the patient who will never see us. Thank you.
Slide 10: References
- Alkadi et al. (2026); Benneyan et al. (2003); English Standard Version Bible (2016); Goetsch and Davis (2016); Powell (1995)
References
Alkadi, L., Alsuhaibani, M., Altuwaijri, K., Alotaibi, S., AlAlwan, R., Almaymuni, M., Al Muhyi, N., & Farook, F. F. (2026). Prevalence and associated factors of laboratory remakes in fixed prosthodontics: A multicenter audit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Dental Journal, 38(2), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44445-025-00110-2
Benneyan, J. C., Lloyd, R. C., & Plsek, P. E. (2003). Statistical process control as a tool for research and healthcare improvement. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 12(6), 458-464. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.12.6.458
English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)
Goetsch, D. L., & Davis, S. B. (2016). Quality management for organizational excellence: Introduction to total quality (8th ed.). Pearson.
Powell, T. C. (1995). Total quality management as competitive advantage: A review and empirical study. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 15-37. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250160105
What the BUSI 616 Week 8 instructions ask
Module/Week 8 closes BUSI 616 with Deming's 14 points and seven deadly diseases from Goetsch and Davis, five presentations, two websites, Discussion Board Forum 13 and the TQM Presentation. Students create a presentation of their Total Quality Management project lasting five to seven minutes, with no more than 10 slides and talking notes, imagining they are speaking at a conference and using the grading rubric as a guide. The guide sets the time budget: about one minute for the introduction, problem statement, search history and reason for study; three minutes or more for the quality philosophy, the quality tool used to create a process flow diagram and the statistical process control used for tracking; and a minute or more for the conclusion with biblical integration. The finished presentation goes to the Discussion Board Forum and to the assignment link.
How this BUSI 616 Week 8 example is built
No slide holds more than three brief lines, and the talking notes beneath it hold what the speaker says, timed at roughly 35 to 45 seconds a slide. The opening slides state the remake rate, how the literature was searched and why the problem matters to dentists and patients. The middle slides explain the Deming philosophy chosen in Week 1, show how the Pareto chart and check sheet led to a process flow diagram with two new decision points, and present a p-chart with its center line and control limits computed from weekly volume. The last slides give the result of the pilot, a projected outcome, the business implications and a closing reflection on faithful work, followed by a reference slide.
BUSI 616 Week 8 grading rubric: where the points go
The presentation carries 195 points, nearly a fifth of the course grade, and the rubric follows the outline in the guide. Graders check that each required element appears in its time slot: problem statement, search history and reason for study at the start; quality philosophy, quality tool and process flow diagram and statistical process control in the middle; solution, implications, projected outcome and biblical integration at the end. They also assess whether the slides stay within 10, whether the talking notes support rather than repeat the slides and whether the delivery fits five to seven minutes. Accurate use of TQM concepts, a coherent project linking all eight modules and correctly formatted APA sources, cited in the notes and gathered on a final slide, complete the evaluation.
BUSI 616 Week 8 help: mistakes that cost points
The usual trouble is time. Students try to present every paper from the course and run to twelve minutes, so choose the few findings that tell the story and leave the rest. Follow the guide's outline in order, because the rubric does. Don't skip the search history; a single slide naming databases, terms and limits is enough. Make the process flow diagram readable at a glance, with the new steps marked. For the control chart, state how the limits were calculated and what signal you are watching for. Write talking notes as spoken sentences and rehearse with a timer. Finally, put the biblical integration in the conclusion, where the guide places it, and tie it to the solution.
Related BUSI 616 sample papers
Other BUSI 616 weeks
- BUSI 616 Week 1: Deming vs. Crosby Philosophies
- BUSI 616 Week 2: Partners, Alliances and Culture
- BUSI 616 Week 3: Internal and External Customers
- BUSI 616 Week 4: Training Needs Analysis
- BUSI 616 Week 5: Quality Tool: Remake Pareto Chart
- BUSI 616 Week 6: PDCA Cycle for Open Margins
- BUSI 616 Week 7: Change Management Strategy
More MBA sample papers
- BUSI 610 Week 8: Forum 4 Part 2: Culture and Change
- BUSI 613 Week 8: Faith and Learning: Supply Chains
- BUSI 614 Week 8: SPSS Assignment 7: Segmentation
- BUSI 615 Week 8: Final ILP: ERP Management Report
BUSI 616 Week 8 questions, answered
What is the BUSI 616 TQM Presentation?
The final 195-point assignment in Module/Week 8: a 5 to 7 minute presentation of no more than 10 slides with talking notes summarizing the student's Total Quality Management project, following an outline set in the course guide.
Where can I find a free BUSI 616 Week 8 sample paper?
A full BUSI 616 Week 8 TQM Presentation is on this page, ten slides with talking notes on reducing crown remakes at a dental laboratory, including a process flow diagram and a p-chart.
What must the BUSI 616 TQM Presentation include?
An introduction with the problem statement, search history and reason for study; the quality philosophy, the quality tool used to create a process flow diagram and the statistical process control used for tracking; and a conclusion with biblical integration.
How do you calculate control limits for a p-chart?
Take the average proportion defective, compute its standard error from the average sample size, then place the upper limit three of those standard errors over the average and the lower limit three under it, using zero if the lower figure comes out negative.
How many slides should the BUSI 616 presentation have?
No more than 10, with talking notes to supplement them; the guide notes that not all of the project's information can be presented in five to seven minutes.
Use it as a model, or ask for your own
This paper is an original model written by our desk for study. It is not a submitted student paper and not an official Liberty University document. Read it for structure and reasoning, then write your own to the instructions in your Canvas course. If you want a version built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Ask for a custom BUSI 616 Week 8 sample · All BUSI 616 weeks · All courses